Best Midrange?
- Thread starter Tenson
- Start date
This is more my scene
Except it really will be (just like the film), a forgone conclusion as to what get consigned to the shallow open grave - + they are small enough to fit in there easily;-)
I have the original soundtrack on vinyl
Except it really will be (just like the film), a forgone conclusion as to what get consigned to the shallow open grave - + they are small enough to fit in there easily;-)
I have the original soundtrack on vinyl
I think if you consider the large surface area used to transmit vibration to the air, it is comparable to that of a horn system. Think about it, a small diaphragm moving a small amount to move a large area of air at the mouth of a horn, or a large area diaphragm moving a small amount to move a large amount of air. Both have high efficiency and both move the same amount of air. How they do it doesn't matter, does it?
I'd have to ask you to expand on the comment about detail. Why does a high sensitivity deliver more detail? A low sensitivity system will need higher signal gain, but the small details will be amped up just the same as the obvious sounds. It might even be argued that the greater signal gain required moved it further away from the noise floor of the equipment making details easier to hear.
I think 20cm is very significant, but that depends if you are concerned with getting near point-source speakers.
That doesn't necessarily mean point source speakers are pointless, lol. IMO point source is less about phase relationship of frequency bands, and more about dispersion in the horizontal and vertical axis. You hear this via reflections from the room. If the vertical axis sound has big holes in the response you will hear it by the room. Horns help reduce that I suppose but not eliminate it, and there will still be changes from vertical listening position movements.
All this is not to say multi-way horn systems are rubbish. Not at all. They do have negative points though and I think in general discussion should not be ignored quite so easily. If you like the sound in your specific case though, then ignore away.
i am no expert on horn theory but I do hear good things going on.
I understand it as the column of air (horn loading) is what makes them work so well.
There is about 0.5Kg of air in my mid/lower bass horn that is resisting the driver and coupling with it. Perhaps 1Kg or more in the Tapped horn. That's what horn loading is and why horns work.
Sensitivity is useful as if go low power SETs you have less mishmash added to your signal / amp path.
Your larger diaphragm to achieve the same sound level has higher mass and inertia and thus looses response speed and that is heard as clarity loss. Compression drivers excel here and diaphragms made of Aluminium, Titanium, CF, Beryllium and good old Phenolic have all been used to improve performance.
I'm no expert on the theory but I know what I hear.
My upper horn has a 3" Beryllium diaphragm 1.5" throat, mid has 4" Phenolic / 2", mid - low bass horn has a 15" paper diaphragm / 4" throat. Tapped horn has 15" LF unit and 8" throat in a tapped horn.
The diaphragm size must relate to the frequency.
Agree entirely right speakers for the job. But from my listening chair I am getting closer to right.
Near point - sound likeyo would end up with headphones to me and they just do not do the same thing at all.
Nothing is perfect but some things give some more pleasure than others;-)
I understand it as the column of air (horn loading) is what makes them work so well.
There is about 0.5Kg of air in my mid/lower bass horn that is resisting the driver and coupling with it. Perhaps 1Kg or more in the Tapped horn. That's what horn loading is and why horns work.
Sensitivity is useful as if go low power SETs you have less mishmash added to your signal / amp path.
Your larger diaphragm to achieve the same sound level has higher mass and inertia and thus looses response speed and that is heard as clarity loss. Compression drivers excel here and diaphragms made of Aluminium, Titanium, CF, Beryllium and good old Phenolic have all been used to improve performance.
I'm no expert on the theory but I know what I hear.
My upper horn has a 3" Beryllium diaphragm 1.5" throat, mid has 4" Phenolic / 2", mid - low bass horn has a 15" paper diaphragm / 4" throat. Tapped horn has 15" LF unit and 8" throat in a tapped horn.
The diaphragm size must relate to the frequency.
Agree entirely right speakers for the job. But from my listening chair I am getting closer to right.
Near point - sound likeyo would end up with headphones to me and they just do not do the same thing at all.
Nothing is perfect but some things give some more pleasure than others;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
Hand-waving for discussion: Steve's point about the large air load is a good one - it means that driver displacement is heavily damped, and the coupling efficiency high; both these things minimise distortion from the drivers which pretty much scales with current through the voicecoil and with driver displacement.Tenson said:
I'd also suggest that a drivers distortion and noise is probably 30-40dB above the electronic's noise floor at the very least. -; -60dB is a very good performance for any driver, and it will not stay that low when pushed. So seeking higher efficiency has to be a good thing - if it can be done without introducing other trade-offs (hence the holy wars over optimal horn profile I suspect!)
Yes, I have not even got into that yet conical seems a good place to start and I had plenty of birch ply. Perhaps when I am next bored I will make a large enough horn lathe but (where are the Airwaves when you need them...) yes, I've come to my senses )
conical seems a good place to start and I had plenty of birch ply. Perhaps when I am next bored I will make a large enough horn lathe but (where are the Airwaves when you need them...) yes, I've come to my senses ) TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
It's worth reading anything you can find written by Paul Klipsch when it comes to horns, there is plenty dotted around the Klipsch website and forum, but it takes a little hunting down (hence my not linking directly). To paraphrase what I can remember: he states the key advantages as lower distortion due to a combination of better efficiency, lower moving mass, higher mechanical rigidity, and better interfacing with the room - he was a very firm believer in the corner horn figuring it better to accept the room exists and to work with it rather than producing speakers that fight this inevitability by needing to be away from boundaries etc. He coupled the bass-loading to the room itself whilst using the directional nature of the mid and tweeter horns as an advantage, i.e. fire the sound straight at the listener, not all over the room, thus far less reflection issues. I am convinced this is why (to my ears at least) horns sound so much more direct, clean and focused than wide-dispersion speakers - the ears get the sound before the room reflections (the brain is far better at filtering out post-echo than pre-echo). Obviously there have been many advances in conventional speaker design since Klipsch carried out his pioneering work, and many fine examples, but I still find his logic pretty much flawless. He was one of audio's great thinkers IMO
Yeah sounds good Tony. My Tapped horns use the corners and gain 5+dB. The rest are direct firing at you, with correct attenuation and time aligning no one driver is obtrusive or in your face - the music just appears and works.
Pinpoint (small) source they are not but I gladly trade that off for the all the other benefits I hear.
(but I still find his logic pretty much flawless. He was one of audio's great thinkers IMO) - "you cannae change the laws of physics cap't" Salesmen may try though.
Pinpoint (small) source they are not but I gladly trade that off for the all the other benefits I hear.
(but I still find his logic pretty much flawless. He was one of audio's great thinkers IMO) - "you cannae change the laws of physics cap't" Salesmen may try though.
Last edited by a moderator:
The B&W DM70 hybrid electrostats have fantastic midrange.
Better than the QUADs and the BBC derived designs.The DM70s are certainly more dynamic.
The best of the BBC types were the Tangent RS4s in my experience.Very inneficient speakers but very good.
Better than the QUADs and the BBC derived designs.The DM70s are certainly more dynamic.
The best of the BBC types were the Tangent RS4s in my experience.Very inneficient speakers but very good.
